On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, wrote:

Well maybe as far as the standard Ringo, which is a half wave.
But the Ringo Ranger was a dual 5/8 collinear. Seems to me that
design was used more to get more gain vs the shorter antennas,
rather than trying to avoid radials.

When it first came out, decoupling from the feed line was not
given too much consideration, at least for lower cost amateur
antennas.. And most that used it, thought it did OK. Likely
because they had nothing better to compare to, or the feed line
lengths, mounting, did not skew that pattern as bad in some
cases, as it did others. The amount of skewing will vary some
in each installation. It was pretty bad in my case.

But then the Isopole came out.. And the roof caved in. lol..
The Isopole was so much better performing than the regular
Ringo Ranger, that Cushcraft had no choice but to add some
method of decoupling to their antenna, if they wanted to
continue to sell many of them.
So they added the lower 50 inches of coax, and a set of
1/4 wave radials at the bottom of that length of coax, which
was grounded at that point, to the mast supporting the antenna.

The decoupling section helped greatly, and saved Cushcraft
from certain VHF vertical sales ruination.
It was still slightly inferior to the method the Isopole
used, but close enough to keep them in the game.
Many preferred the RR2 because it was a bit less ugly than
the Isopole. And maybe a bit cheaper, but I can't remember
how they were priced at the time.

I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will seen
what I can learn.

tom
K0TAR

Thanks for the information TOM

At Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:22:05 -0500, Barry V. rearranged some electrons to
write:

On Sat, 9 Feb 2013 14:51:37 +0000, Channel Jumper
wrote:

I was under the impression that this person was a HAM and wanted to talk
as well as listen.
Then we got into a discussion about scanners.
Now I am confused.

It may help to understand this is TUUK we are talking about. At least
this time it isn't about saunas.

Or magic lava rocks.

On 2/13/2013 9:50 PM, tom wrote:
On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, wrote:

I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will see
what I can learn.

tom
K0TAR

Well I called this evening and he's contesting all weekend. I'll call
him back Monday. It's very likely he was around when it was designed.
Some may know who he was - "Joe" should be identification enough for
those who are familiar the Cushcraft designers.

tom
K0TAR

"Helmut Wabnig" [email protected] --- -.dotat wrote in message
...
On Wed, 6 Feb 2013 22:08:02 +0000, Channel Jumper
wrote:


'Tom[_8_ Wrote:
;801430']Hi all

Now I need a recommendation for a 2m 70cm base antenna. This will go
right
at the top of a 50ft tower. My ringo 2m modification antenna didn't pan
out
too well. I could get low SWR on some freq but I want a wider range of
work.
If that is possible. I also use it for 156 megs (Marine band).

I am looking at the utubes of dual band antennas for home, I like the
UVS-300.

Can anyone make a recommendation for the purchase of a dual band
antenna? I
would also like to use it as a SWL antenna as I listen a lot on all
bands.


// snip //

You cannot SWL with a real duoband antenna, because it is frequency
selective and is dead on the SW bands.

w.

The shield on his dual-bander coax may work. The downside is the likely
pickup of interference close to the SW rcvr, like from a computer, switching
PS, fluorescent lights, etc.

I just tried it, using a coax-to-banana-jack adapter. I used a clip-lead to
connect the red banana jack to the shield of my 6m j-pole, making the shield
the antenna. It's about thirty feet long and it worked tolerably well on
the SW bands that are active at the moment. I did some A/B comparisons by
switching between the "shield-antenna" and my 20m dipole. Some SW stations
were actually better on the "shield-antenna."

"Sal"
(KD6VKW)

For the original question.
All the in production dual band antennas are going to be fairly comparable, so pick the one that you can afford. The more gain it may have (within reason) the better off you are. I'll add the Comet line of dual band antennas in the rest of the opinions already expressed. Are they 'better' than all the rest? I haven't the slightest clue, but the ones I have are certainly comparable.

As for a monitoring antenna, since you've got a 50 foot tower, run a wire antenna off of it. Cheap, variable length possibilities, and they tend to work. If it's strictly for monitoring, just run a wire as long as possible and end feed it. Will be good for transmitting? That's not likely without a lot of effort, but it'll 'listen' real well. And it's cheap.
There is no such thing as a 'do it all well' antenna. They are about like all the other "one size fit's all" thingys, no they don't.
And probably the most profound argument you can be given is that it's VERY doubtful if you only have one antenna for anything. Or one antenna for very long...
- 'Doc

On 2/13/2013 9:50 PM, tom wrote:
On 2/12/2013 10:15 PM, wrote:

Well maybe as far as the standard Ringo, which is a half wave.
But the Ringo Ranger was a dual 5/8 collinear. Seems to me that
design was used more to get more gain vs the shorter antennas,
rather than trying to avoid radials.

When it first came out, decoupling from the feed line was not
given too much consideration, at least for lower cost amateur
antennas.. And most that used it, thought it did OK. Likely
because they had nothing better to compare to, or the feed line
lengths, mounting, did not skew that pattern as bad in some
cases, as it did others. The amount of skewing will vary some
in each installation. It was pretty bad in my case.

But then the Isopole came out.. And the roof caved in. lol..
The Isopole was so much better performing than the regular
Ringo Ranger, that Cushcraft had no choice but to add some
method of decoupling to their antenna, if they wanted to
continue to sell many of them.
So they added the lower 50 inches of coax, and a set of
1/4 wave radials at the bottom of that length of coax, which
was grounded at that point, to the mast supporting the antenna.

The decoupling section helped greatly, and saved Cushcraft
from certain VHF vertical sales ruination.
It was still slightly inferior to the method the Isopole
used, but close enough to keep them in the game.
Many preferred the RR2 because it was a bit less ugly than
the Isopole. And maybe a bit cheaper, but I can't remember
how they were priced at the time.

I have a Cushcraft engineering connection from that era. I will seen
what I can learn.

tom
K0TAR




Spent a while on the phone with Joe. Most was about other things for an
hour and a half.

Story as I know it -

Dateline was mid 70's. A local ham (unknown) designed a CB antenna that
was the original Ranger. It was copied by Lester Cushman.

It was redone as antennas for 6 and 2. And it had decoupling issues.

And Dave Olean (still well known) was assigned to handle the decoupling
issues.

And that's what we know.

tom
K0TAR